“…Why should Canada spend lots on defense….My opinion is that you [US] do have a choice - you could choose to cut your military by a factor of 50, and enjoy life on the American continent and let the rest of the world take care of itself. So far you have chosen to spend enormous amounts of treasure and blood to be world hegemon - ok sure. The point is, you don’t have to. You choose to. We chose to take care of our people instead….”

How about if our prospective “factor of 50″ cut were to include an announcement that an attack on Canada would no longer be regarded as an attack on the US? That would certainly allow us to save on defense expenditures, though it might be bad for yours (ie Canadians might decide they need their own independent nuclear deterrent force).

You might be thinking that Canada could go to a formal policy of total neutrality a la Switzerland, but I would point out to you that Switzerland (and Sweden) have traditionally maintained large (for their size) conventional military establishments, in order to protect their neutrality (to include conscription).

Or maybe you could choose to rely on the former “mother country’s” nuclear deterrent. There’s certainly a historical precedent for this; it would merely mark a return to the formal North American defense posture that prevailed prior to December 1941. But — would the UK agree to undertake such a commitment?

Better check it out ahead of time.

In exactly what way has the US “unfairly treated”…; “given the cold shoulder” to…; & “punished” Canada? Surely derogatory public references from some Americans (like in this TN-only campaign ad) don’t qualify — Lord knows we (the US) get enough derogatory public references from Bush admin-despising Canadians (as a few fair Canadians pointed out in the comments section of the Globe & Mail article that was linked above).

It’s your country’s absolute right to not participate in US initiatives, if you see them as “folly”, and if Canadians as a whole are absolutely convinced they are right, then the avoidance of such “folly” (Iraq, US continental anti-ballistic defense) should be its own reward. Do you think Americans should also lavishly thank you for angrily rebuking them over their own decision as to do what they judge is in their national interest?

There are interesting parallels between the US-ROK and the US-Canada defense relationship, though one of the main differences is that Canada is willing to risk the lives of its soldiers to support the Nato effort in Afghanistan (for which they should always be prominently mentioned in the US press and by the Bush administration).

But isn’t the Afghan op being supported with your forces because, overall, Canadians have objectively judged that it’s in Canada’s interest to do so? (Surely not because Canada is “doing the Yanks a favor” — Canadian lives are too important for that).

You know, there was a time (still in the memory of some living Canadians) when the shoe was on the other foot. When Canada was fighting a war it deemed in its national interest, while the US stood by on the sidelines (and was probably “getting the cold shoulder” from some Canadians for its lack of participation).

I’m talking of course about 1939-41.

If you are really saying, mr goat, that we should be spending lots of our GDP on defense so as to be unpaid auxiliaries to your glorious military and it’s adventures on other continents….well, why should we?

If you are saying that America has no choice but to spend staggering percentages of your wealth on the military and we are hypocrites for criticizing social problems arising from those massive military expenditures…well that is a question of opinion. My opinion is that you do have a choice - you could choose to cut your military by a factor of 50, and enjoy life on the American continent and let the rest of the world take care of itself. So far you have chosen to spend enormous amounts of treasure and blood to be world hegemon - ok sure. The point is, you don’t have to. You choose to. We chose to take care of our people instead.

#12: “…Canadian criticism of the States could more accurately be called “US-exasperated sighing” or “US-roll our eyes at the things they are doing now” or “US-shake our heads in dismay”. We’re a pretty mild bunch, politically…”

I just took a look at the Globe & Mail comments section from the link (after my previous comments). I see they they closed it after 27.

Wow.
“William Doyle from Prince George, Canada writes: ‘So the Bush regime thinks that Canada is a freeloader . I would say that if the Bush regime think we should be joining them in plundering and torturing people all over the world then I am happy to be called a freeloader.

Judgement day is coming for them, I would say that the key members of the Republican government will be spending an eternity in hell, they will not as easily fool St Peter as they have the people of the USA.’”

Mr Doyle may have been inspired to his hell analogy by the recent speech of El Presidente Chavez at the UN. Most of the other comments are along these lines, though not as strong; take a look.

I don’t think it’s quite as easy to separate us (Americans) from our own government as foreigners may imagine; what was the Guardian (English newspaper) headline after the election (”How could 59 million Americans be so dumb?” — something like that).

Of course this may mean that we Americans are indeed bound for one of the circles of hell; in that case, I think those who feel this way should immediately take measures to protect themselves, by getting as much distance between them and the US as possible.

Compared to Europe, or god, Korea, Canadian criticism of the States could more accurately be called “US-exasperated sighing” or “US-roll our eyes at the things they are doing now” or “US-shake our heads in dismay”. We’re a pretty mild bunch, politically, despite what some drunken Canuck expat ranting a little at 2 am in a bar may have convinced you of otherwise.